The recent release of over 90,000 classified military documents by WikiLeaks has sparked significant controversy and debate regarding transparency and government accountability. The documents, primarily after-action reports from soldiers, reveal troubling incidents, including the killing of civilians, and raise questions about the ethical implications of their release. Critics argue that WikiLeaks is biased and that the information could jeopardize military operations and national security. The discussion highlights the tension between the public's right to know and the potential harm of exposing sensitive information.
PREREQUISITESThis discussion is beneficial for journalists, military personnel, policymakers, and anyone interested in the intersection of government transparency, ethics, and national security.
Proton Soup said:but... are we really at a point where the purpose of our military is to fight evil and stamp out injustice in the world?
russ_watters said:Wow. With such a flawed view of science, it is unsurprising that you don't see how someone with a scientific worldview can be a moral absolutist.
The principle behind my moral absolutism is exactly the same as the principle behind my scientific worldview: the way the universe works/should work is logical.
BobG said:...
There is a difference and conditions for women are better under Karzai than the Taliban, but it's a stretch to say that's because Karzai is a champion of women's rights. ...
heusdens said:And the position of women in Afghanistan (i.e in the region that were under control of the Afghan government) was good at the time the Soviet Union was mixing into the Afghan situation (which they were asked to do by the Afghan government of that time), but then - that was for the US not something of any consideration, so they paied and trained the opposing Mujahedien (the fundamentalist Islamic fighters) cause they were then the "freedom fighters" that would free the Afghans from the "evil" Soviets...